How to debate Creationists without being boring

Reader comments

i find this whole argument a tool of the powers that be. much like all the current rhetoric about christ being married. insofar as any of these debates ever being solved through verbal discourse, that’s about as likely as kennedy walking in here right now (cue) and telling us all who really shot him. as far as having a lasting effect on your life…does it? does it really matter? no, not really, and quarreling on and on in debate about topics like this, in life and media, only fuel fires of dissent for the pigopolists to divide and conquer us. but people like to talk about arguments with no solutions, where the argument itself affects their lives not one iota, except in the fantasy world they desperately try to inhabit. if they ever woke up and looked at the struggles that are happening right under their noses they would probably get really shaken up about the real world situation. oh, uh, I’m sorry…I thought this was the meeting down at the docks, that’s tomorrow night.

I recommend Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel on this topic. Dont worry, its not a bible humper book at all - infact, insofar, I dont recall it mentioning the bible - just scientific evidence. However, It convinced me to second guess athiesm

The burden of belief is actually greater for atheism, because that is the nature of negative proof. You can’t prove God isn’t hiding between the last rock in the outermost corner of the universe, unless you’ve looked under every rock. Until then, you can only have a persuasive scientific case - but whats interesting to me is that atheism requires a greater degree of belief than any other, whereas some don’t realise it requires belief or say…faith, at all. Any journalist will tell you that the hardest task of all is proving without a doubt that someone or something does not exist.

You know, anymore, this is one debate I just ignore. My experience has been that it’s largely composed of rival camps of fundimentalists and neither side has much interesting to say - for all that fundimentalist creationists engage in pure logical rudeness more often than not, I’ve seen too many cocksure athiest materialists spout stuff that’s little better in principle. And of course, it so often seems to come down to one side or the other being certain that their opponents must be eradicated for the good of humanity - under the banner of “saving souls” or “ensuring correct and rational thinking”, it all reeks.

Actually, all this talk reminds me of an anecdote about some guy who wanted to identify the taste of Cyanide. He opted for a simple ‘Sweet’ or ‘Sour’ classification. His dead body was found next to his notebook where he had written the letter ‘S’.

And still, no picture from Jason of his doormat. I am beginning to believe that the doormat doesn’t exist, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to search every foyer in NYC to prove/disprove the existence of the mat according to the methodology of Bingaman. So I guess I’ll take the lazy role and be a doormat agnostic.

Don’t you atheists know that Jesus died for you? Haven’t you seen the Gospel According to Mel? But seriously, as hard as it is to prove (conclusively) that God exists, the religious will always have the upper hand in a spiritual debate. Even if an atheist proves beyond any doubts that God is nonexistant, a religious person can always state “Well, that’s why it’s called faith.”

David, your “time is money” approach makes sense. You haven’t offended me. I think it is worth noting that there are some who may be inclined to argue for the side of God but don’t. I have close friends who believe differently than I do, and if they’d like to shoot the bull - then sure, I’ll toss the idea around, and its usually a fair, intelligent conversation. I’m not going to “save” anybody, or even change anyone’s mind for that matter if I just hop on a bunch of threads and attack all naysayers. It happens on both sides, and it doesn’t make any sense to me. Have you ever seen a mind truly changed in such a debate? I haven’t. But I have over long periods of time, by circumstances of relationship, not debate. You see it in the political spectrum as well. People have a propensity that forces them to use the opposition’s worst, most elementary example as the only example, and its just noise. Even if I am wrong, based upon experience, I like to think there are smart and decent atheists, creationists, republicans, and democrats - though they may be hard to find. If anything, this “belief” allows for me to once in a while have a good conversation, instead of a raunchy debate, and once in a while - I change my mind.

Robert, I’m glad that I didn’t offend you, as that was not my intent. While my first post was typed light heartedly, I can follow up more seriously now and echo the net effect of all the posts and say that the truth as to the existence of God is unknowable or unproveable by either side. Having slid from the position of one zealous for the cause of Christ to one comfortable thinking that the question as to the existence of God is less interesting than what one intends to do with that knowledge, I value the discussion but don’t care to argue a position.

David, your story sounds interesting. Though we may fall on different sides of the argument, you seem to have a tone that is similar to mine, as at this point - you must have real relationships and experiences from each point in the spectrum. I think that sort of “slide” story can give someone a great deal of the knowledge you speak of, and also help one realize that said knowledge is much more valuable than opinion.

What I meant to get across when I said you didnt offend me is that nothing I’m going to read in this thread is going to offend me, and your rational approach certainly won’t.